If only the left would treat the unborn the way they want to treat rapists, murderers, and the homeless. I think all of this reproductive technology is seriously eroding our morals and ethical boundaries concerning human rights. Rather than running through an moral minefield all in the name of life, it seems silly that in order to create all this life requires so much death, perhaps we should just take some of the reproductive technology off the table and say to couples "I am sorry you can't have a child, have you considered adoption."

Many infertile people that use IVF and surrogates are on "the right", so I don't expect "the right" to come down on infertility treatment any time soon, at least without the kind of exceptions that were recently put in the proposed Georgia law.

gunsmoke:

If only the left would treat the unborn the way they want to treat rapists, murderers, and the homeless. I think all of this reproductive technology is seriously eroding our morals and ethical boundaries concerning human rights. Rather than running through an moral minefield all in the name of life, it seems silly that in order to create all this life requires so much death, perhaps we should just take some of the reproductive technology off the table and say to couples "I am sorry you can't have a child, have you considered adoption."

When you run for office, you'll have my vote.

There's no credible reason to presume an embryo created for use in IVF does.

“If only the left would treat the unborn the way they want to treat rapists, murderers, and the homeless.”

>>I’m not aware there’s such a thing as ‘the unborn’? There fertilized human ova, human zygotes, and human fetuses—are you talking about one of these? (And if it’s the last, at what stage of development?)

“I think all of this reproductive technology is seriously eroding our morals and ethical boundaries concerning human rights.”

>>How so? You seem to be presuming that ova/zygoses/fetuses are vested with human rights at all stages of development, but that isn’t the case.

“Rather than running through an moral minefield all in the name of life, it seems silly that in order to create all this life requires so much death, perhaps we should just take some of the reproductive technology off the table and say to couples "I am sorry you can't have a child, have you considered adoption."”

>>But clearly we CAN help infertile couples to bear children, and you haven’t even attempted to make a credible case why it would be unethical to do so.

So here’s the question: by what argument is it unethical to fertilize sufficient eggs to create sufficient embryos to ensure the successful initiation of a human pregnancy , even if it’s likely that some number of those embryo’s will be unneeded?

So what do you do when said couples simply go to Europe or Asia to obtain access to reproductive technology? Have them locked up? Take the children away and put them up for adoption? I understand your point, but you aren't going to put this djinni back in the bottle anytime soon.

Especially because you aren't talking about taking the big step; creating a social movement that delegitimizes extraordinary efforts to have biological children. People are having a hard enough time attempting to get people to adopt dogs from shelters instead of buying new puppies. Consider how much social engineering it's going to take to get people to think that it's better to adopt than to have their own children.

I admire your conviction, but I'll be mightily impressed if you ever get that rock up the mountainside. Although I would suggest that blocking insurance coverage for such technology may be a good start, if you really want to try it.

"Is human life this worthless?"

Yep. Pretty easy to make more of us.

On what Constitutional basis would you pin your law that said:

"I am sorry you can't have a child, have you considered adoption."

Because if you cannot find a Constitutional basis for this, you cannot regulate since it violates a host of constitutionally protected realms of life.

This is what conservatives don't seem to get. Liberals are not "protecting rapists, murderers and the homeless " (though it is telling that Gunsmoke equates the homeless with murderers) - they are instead simply defending the Constitutional rights of EVERY ONE, themselves included.

Conservatives OTOH seem to consider the Constitution "quaint" unless it lets them indulge their fetishes about guns or sticking their boot in someone's ass.

It's not just having a child that's genetically related to you. It's also raising a child from birth. Most parents want to come home with a baby, and have the experiences of having a baby - seeing the first smile, first steps, feeding them, diapering them, kissing their little baby toes. There are very few newborn babies available for adoption. Most children available for adoption in the US are older children. Even in international adoption, they're usually not babies, and more and more countries are shutting down international adoption.

I'm adopted, and I think adoption is great. But those parents are giving up a lot, when they wanted a baby, and got a 13 year old.

kwheless:

It's not just having a child that's genetically related to you. It's also raising a child from birth. Most parents want to come home with a baby, and have the experiences of having a baby - seeing the first smile, first steps, feeding them, diapering them, kissing their little baby toes. There are very few newborn babies available for adoption. Most children available for adoption in the US are older children. Even in international adoption, they're usually not babies, and more and more countries are shutting down international adoption.

I'm adopted, and I think adoption is great. But those parents are giving up a lot, when they wanted a baby, and got a 13 year old.

I understand that, and think it's a tough thing on both the kids and the adoptive parents. It's also a great one. A huge spirit to take in a child into your home and make them your own.

Bondsman:

I understand that, and think it's a tough thing on both the kids and the adoptive parents. It's also a great one. A huge spirit to take in a child into your home and make them your own.

Its a huge act... AND VOLUNTARY. The Government cannot compel..

The first--our daughter--at six months. the second--our son--ay 13 months.

I agree the experiences were different. But in neither case did we give up anything--we gained a son and daughter.

people keep telling us how lucky our kids were, with the unstated context being of course it's better to live in the US than elsewhere. They don't get that we were the lucky ones.

Surrogacy is also voluntary. And the first 23 weeks and a day are entirely voluntary. All this time to make a decision and then you want to assert a 13th amendment right? Where does involuntary come in? At 24 weeks there is viability, a human life which the person in question volunteered to carry. And further since someone brought up tort. An abortion at any stage would bring one heck of a tort claim.

Contracts are voluntary moment to moment. That's the definition of voluntary. You can have a construction contract and the contractor walks away with no notice. There may be a tort that you can file as a consequence, but The Government cannot compell the contractor to servitude.

As for "a human life" being in question - show me where The Constitution cedes to The Government the power to abrogate the Constitution simply to save a life. Just any shred of a text that allows it to do so.

An abortion at any stage would bring one heck of a tort claim

Ah but on who's behalf? In the case of these surrogates - the contract has already been broken by the other party. So the surrogate is no longer under any compunction to perform her side of the contract.

A tort might be able to be brought on behalf of the fetus if the fetus had legal personhood - which it does not. But who then is the guardian ad lietum of this fetus? The genetic parents? The Host Woman? Arguably it is the Host Woman since she is in possession and the genetic parents have breached the contract.

So you have a case of where the surrogate sues herself on behalf of the estate of the fetus for which she is the guardian... Yeah that's gonna happen

Degs I agree that the Govt cannot (legally) violate the constitution. But you have not proven you case under the 13th. You claim the the government force pregnant women into involuntary servitude by prohibiting the abortion of a 24 week fetus. How do you find involuntary servitude in pregnancy? Servitude to whom?

First, lets settle whether it is servitude. Servitude is something, anything that REQUIRES non-trivial effort on the part of the person being imposed upon. For example, requiring someone to pull to the side of the rode to eject an unwanted passenger is a trivial imposition, requiring that you drive them to their destination is non-trivial.

Clearly, since carrying to term has a host of adverse health outcomes and risks (6x death rate over abortion) there is a non-trivial amount of effort involved up to the very last moment. Thus it is servitude up to the very last moment.

OK so to whom is this servitude rendered? First that doesn't matter. Am 13 precludes enforcing involuntary servitude of anykind to anyone. And since we have established that carrying to term is servitude, and since a woman seeking an abortion clearly does not wish to continue that seritude, requiring her to do so is inherently involuntary and hence involuntary servitude.

So to whom the servitude exists is irrelevant.

But if you wan the specifics of to whom that servitude exists - it all depends on whether or not there exists a legal fiction of "fetal personhood". At this date, such a legal fiction does not exist. The fetus has no rights independent of the host woman. But Roe asserts a "compelling state interest in promoting life". IOW Roe asserts (out of whole cloth I might add) that The State is the beneficiary of a complete carriage to term.

Now if at some point in time the legal fiction of "fetal personhood" comes to pass.

(An aside here. I use the term "legal fiction" because inherently "fetal personhood" would have a lesser set of rights than fully born personhood. Consider the case where a mother's kidney donation would cause a miscarriage but save her born child. No jury nor judge would require the death of the born child over the termination of the pregnancy QED the "fetal person" has less rights than a full person and hence it is a "legal fiction" rather than a full granting of personhood)

It is clear that there is a benefit to the "fetal person" in the continuation of the pregnancy to full term. Thus if the legal fiction of "fetal personhood" comes to pass then there is servitude to both The State and the fetal person.